or Connect
TheSandTrap.com › Golf Forum › The Clubhouse › Rules of Golf › Posting most likely score in match play competition
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Posting most likely score in match play competition - Page 2

post #19 of 35
Quote:
Originally Posted by David in FL View Post


1) So you won't pick up after 0 points in a stableford match? Most proponents of stableford (I like the format too) cite the ability to pick up as a benefit in combatting slow pace of play.

2) I'm just curious though.....in your estimation, given the popularity of both stableford and match play, how many rounds does the average golfer playing under EGA rules post in a year? Maybe the better question, is what percentage of their rounds are actually posted?

 

1) In Match Play you pick up only when the hole has been conceded or decided, nothing to do with stableford points (in EGA).

 

2) Difficult question. It varies so much but I would guess on the average not much more than 4, which is the required minimum. You must understand that in EGA system you need to announce your hcp round before it commences, i.e. you need to decide beforehand if you are going to post the score. This you need to either mention to your marker or record it in the hcp system (through internet). So people are quite lazy to do that and a very high percentage is not even interested in their hcp as they never compete.

 

Stroke Play competition rounds are automatically qualifying rounds with certain limitations. Match Play is never a qualifying round in EGA.

post #20 of 35
Quote:
Originally Posted by David in FL View Post


So you won't pick up after 0 points in a stableford match? Most proponents of stableford (I like the format too) cite the ability to pick up as a benefit in combatting slow pace of play.

I'm just curious though.....in your estimation, given the popularity of both stableford and match play, how many rounds does the average golfer playing under EGA rules post in a year? Maybe the better question, is what percentage of their rounds are actually posted?

 

There is no need to continue a hole if you cannot score in stableford in both the EGA and CONGU systems. The systems include a 'Stableford Adjustment' where a score of over net double bogey is allocated net double bogey for handicap purposes. This also applies to medal (strokeplay) competitions. This is similar to ESC.

 

All medal and stableford competitions are designated as handicap qualifiers, unless course conditions dictate otherwise (eg temporary putting greens). All entrants' scores are automatically included.

Most clubs (in the UK at least) run at least one or two (probably more) competitions a week.

post #21 of 35
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rulesman View Post
 

 

There is no need to continue a hole if you cannot score in stableford in both the EGA and CONGU systems. The systems include a 'Stableford Adjustment' where a score of over net double bogey is allocated net double bogey for handicap purposes.

 

 

Not really in EGA. There is no need to allocate any net double bogeys, those holes just do not give any points, just as described in R32-1b. For handicap purposes there is no need to know whether the player on a par4 scored gross 11, net db or pickep up the ball after having missed his net bogey putt. He simply scores 0 points.

post #22 of 35
Quote:
Originally Posted by turtleback View Post
 

The way the rule reads it seems pretty clear that this is to be a hole by hole determination, not a cumulative determination.  You are to post your most likely score on the hole.  Nowhere does it allow you to combine different situations and posting some kind of weighted average.  So unless one can argue that the fact that he has made it on the first 2 attempts makes it LESS likely that he would make it the third time (which goes against the whole idea of building confidence making it more likely to make, rather than miss), i.e., that you can treat these as non-independent events, you have to score it as if the putt was holed.

 

Do I like that result?  Not particularly.  Which is why I still go ahead and putt out for posting purposes unless the putt is one I know I make over 80-90% of the time (you know, a 6-incher, lol).  But if you don't putt it out I don't see where the rule gives you the kind of wiggle room to use some kind of cumulative average as some are arguing for.

 

I think there's plenty of wiggle room. For example:

 

"The player must evaluate each situation based on what the player can reasonably expect to score."

 

That suggests that past performance can play a role.

 

Besides, as was stated earlier, there are tricky five footers that you're not going to make 50% of the time, and easy ones you'll make 80% of the time. 67% might be an average, but that's just an average for the distance. You could reasonably have someone write down three two-putts on a series of five-footers if you gave him difficult enough putts.

 

In this case, I think people tend to do what's right. And it's probably rare too that a series of five-foot putts are conceded - the real world version of this is likely nowhere near as tidy as "odds of making three five foot putts".

post #23 of 35
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ignorant View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rulesman View Post
 

 

There is no need to continue a hole if you cannot score in stableford in both the EGA and CONGU systems. The systems include a 'Stableford Adjustment' where a score of over net double bogey is allocated net double bogey for handicap purposes.

 

 

Not really in EGA. There is no need to allocate any net double bogeys, those holes just do not give any points, just as described in R32-1b. For handicap purposes there is no need to know whether the player on a par4 scored gross 11, net db or pickep up the ball after having missed his net bogey putt. He simply scores 0 points.

 

So, nothing higher than a double bogey is applied for handicap?  Under the US system, at my handicap I am allowed a maximum of 7 (gross) on any hole on most courses (it goes by course handicap, not by index), meaning that I can return a quad bogey on a par 3 hole, but only a double on a par 5.  With my 16.8 index, if I was playing a difficult course where my course handicap was 20, then I'd be allowed up to an 8 on any hole.  With my index, a course slope rating of at least 135 would result in a course handicap of 20.

post #24 of 35
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ignorant View Post
 

 

Not really in EGA. There is no need to allocate any net double bogeys, those holes just do not give any points, just as described in R32-1b. For handicap purposes there is no need to know whether the player on a par4 scored gross 11, net db or pickep up the ball after having missed his net bogey putt. He simply scores 0 points.

 

So you're posting a stableford score, not a stroke score in the case of stableford competitions?

 

That's where the "buffer" comes into play?

post #25 of 35
Quote:
Originally Posted by David in FL View Post
 

 

So you're posting a stableford score, not a stroke score in the case of stableford competitions?

 

That's where the "buffer" comes into play?

 

Ummmm.... I wonder where to start.

 

All qualifying scores for handicap purposes are always calculated as stableford points, even scratch competition scores. This is because a stableford score is always at least as good as a gross score minus handicap. However, a player is not required to calculate the S-points but this is done by the club.

 

Once a player has scored 36 S-points he has played his handicap and nothing will change. If he plays more his handicap will be adjusted downwards according to certain parameters depending in which hcp-group a player belongs to.

 

1 plus – 4.4; deduction of 0.1 for each S-point exceeding 36
2 4.5 – 11.4; deduction of 0.2 for each S-point exceeding 36
3 11.5 – 18.4; deduction of 0.3 for each S-point exceeding 36
4 18.5 – 26.4; deduction of 0.4 for each S-point exceeding 36
5 26.5 – 36.0; deduction of 0.5 for each S-point exceeding 36

 

Once a player scores less than 36 points his hcp may change or not, depending on the group he belongs to. pls. refer to following table (1-6 are the groups). A score within the buffer zone will not affect the hcp.

 

Handicap category
Bufferzone (Stableford points)
18-hole scores
1 35 – 36; increase by 0.1 total
2 34 – 36; increase by 0.1 total
3 33 – 36; increase by 0.1 total
4 32 – 36; increase by 0.1 total
5 31 – 36; increase by 0.2 total
(6 handicap will not increase)

 

“Handicap categories” are divisions of exact handicaps according to the following table:
Handicap Category Exact Handicap
1 plus – 4.4
2 4.5 – 11.4
3 11.5 – 18.4
4 18.5 – 26.4
5 26.5 – 36.0

(6 >36)

 

A very brief description, detailed info found here: http://www.ega-golf.ch/030000/030100.asp

post #26 of 35
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ignorant View Post
 

Ummmm.... I wonder where to start.

 

All qualifying scores for handicap purposes are always calculated as stableford points, even scratch competition scores. This is because a stableford score is always at least as good as a gross score minus handicap. However, a player is not required to calculate the S-points but this is done by the club.

 

Very informative.  Thanks!

post #27 of 35
Quote:
Originally Posted by iacas View Post
 

 

I think there's plenty of wiggle room. For example:

 

"The player must evaluate each situation based on what the player can reasonably expect to score."

 

That suggests that past performance can play a role.

 

Besides, as was stated earlier, there are tricky five footers that you're not going to make 50% of the time, and easy ones you'll make 80% of the time. 67% might be an average, but that's just an average for the distance. You could reasonably have someone write down three two-putts on a series of five-footers if you gave him difficult enough putts.

 

In this case, I think people tend to do what's right. And it's probably rare too that a series of five-foot putts are conceded - the real world version of this is likely nowhere near as tidy as "odds of making three five foot putts".

 

I agree that the likelihood of making a putt definitely varies depending on the specific circumstances of the putt.  Your most likely score on a straight level 5 footer might be 1 while on a tricky downhill 4-foot slider it might be 2.  What I am saying is that the most likely score for each putt has to be evaluated strictly on its own merits, regardless of what may have been scored on any other hole.  And, of course, you are right that the odds of getting 3 nearly identical 5 foot putts conceded to you is practically nil.  My own way of doing things right is to go ahead and putt out after the concession and try my best to make them all.

post #28 of 35
Quote:
Originally Posted by turtleback View Post
 

I agree that the likelihood of making a putt definitely varies depending on the specific circumstances of the putt.  Your most likely score on a straight level 5 footer might be 1 while on a tricky downhill 4-foot slider it might be 2.  What I am saying is that the most likely score for each putt has to be evaluated strictly on its own merits, regardless of what may have been scored on any other hole.  And, of course, you are right that the odds of getting 3 nearly identical 5 foot putts conceded to you is practically nil.  My own way of doing things right is to go ahead and putt out after the concession and try my best to make them all.

 

I still disagree with the bold, because the end goal is to turn in a final score that's representative of what you'd have shot, in total. Since it's for handicapping, and handicapping is not done on a  per-hole basis (calculating your differential is done with an 18-hole score), the totality should be taken into consideration.

 

Let's imagine you're conceded 10 shots from 150 yards (obviously it's not going to happen, but it's a thought exercise). Maybe you're 60% likely to hit the green, and you average 1.9 putts per time you hit the green, but you're a lousy scrambler so you only get up and down 25% of the time when you miss the green.

 

Should you add three all ten times for 30 when realistically you'd average between 32 and 33. After all, the odds of hitting the green any of those times are > 50%.

 

(To argue against myself, handicaps are actually about potential, not regression to the mean. You'd probably have more luck convincing me via that avenue. :D In real life, honestly, this thing has NEVER come up. I've played plenty of match play events when I was keeping a handicap, and I don't remember ever being unsure about my most likely score for any given hole. Maybe most of my matches were close enough that I was rarely conceded a shot that required much thought.)

post #29 of 35
Quote:
Originally Posted by iacas View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by turtleback View Post
 

I agree that the likelihood of making a putt definitely varies depending on the specific circumstances of the putt.  Your most likely score on a straight level 5 footer might be 1 while on a tricky downhill 4-foot slider it might be 2.  What I am saying is that the most likely score for each putt has to be evaluated strictly on its own merits, regardless of what may have been scored on any other hole.  And, of course, you are right that the odds of getting 3 nearly identical 5 foot putts conceded to you is practically nil.  My own way of doing things right is to go ahead and putt out after the concession and try my best to make them all.

 

I still disagree with the bold, because the end goal is to turn in a final score that's representative of what you'd have shot, in total. Since it's for handicapping, and handicapping is not done on a  per-hole basis (calculating your differential is done with an 18-hole score), the totality should be taken into consideration.

 

Let's imagine you're conceded 10 shots from 150 yards (obviously it's not going to happen, but it's a thought exercise). Maybe you're 60% likely to hit the green, and you average 1.9 putts per time you hit the green, but you're a lousy scrambler so you only get up and down 25% of the time when you miss the green.

 

Should you add three all ten times for 30 when realistically you'd average between 32 and 33. After all, the odds of hitting the green any of those times are > 50%.

 

(To argue against myself, handicaps are actually about potential, not regression to the mean. You'd probably have more luck convincing me via that avenue. :D In real life, honestly, this thing has NEVER come up. I've played plenty of match play events when I was keeping a handicap, and I don't remember ever being unsure about my most likely score for any given hole. Maybe most of my matches were close enough that I was rarely conceded a shot that required much thought.)

 

To tell the truth, I've never been conceded even one 5 foot putt unless the hole was already decided.  In such a case, I would still putt out unless there was a pressing reason not to (maybe if we were off pace).

post #30 of 35

With a nickname like "fourputt", I can see why none of your friends would ever concede a putt to you.

 

But, my hats off to you for putting out all of your putts !!!!!!

 

Club Rat

post #31 of 35
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fourputt View Post
 

 

To tell the truth, I've never been conceded even one 5 foot putt unless the hole was already decided.  In such a case, I would still putt out unless there was a pressing reason not to (maybe if we were off pace).

 

In two of the cases, I was putting for par when my opponent was in for double. He didn't think I was going to 3 putt from 5 feet (although I've done it before!) and told me to pick it up. In the other case, he made his par and "gave" me my putt for bogey.

 

I would normally putt everything out, but we were playing as a 5-some that day and were about a half hole behind the group in front of us. The pace of play was pretty quick and with groups behind us in most cases, I didn't want to hold up play further with a relatively meaningless putt.

post #32 of 35
Quote:
Originally Posted by iacas View Post
 

 

I still disagree with the bold, because the end goal is to turn in a final score that's representative of what you'd have shot, in total. Since it's for handicapping, and handicapping is not done on a  per-hole basis (calculating your differential is done with an 18-hole score), the totality should be taken into consideration.

 

Let's imagine you're conceded 10 shots from 150 yards (obviously it's not going to happen, but it's a thought exercise). Maybe you're 60% likely to hit the green, and you average 1.9 putts per time you hit the green, but you're a lousy scrambler so you only get up and down 25% of the time when you miss the green.

 

Should you add three all ten times for 30 when realistically you'd average between 32 and 33. After all, the odds of hitting the green any of those times are > 50%.

 

(To argue against myself, handicaps are actually about potential, not regression to the mean. You'd probably have more luck convincing me via that avenue. :D In real life, honestly, this thing has NEVER come up. I've played plenty of match play events when I was keeping a handicap, and I don't remember ever being unsure about my most likely score for any given hole. Maybe most of my matches were close enough that I was rarely conceded a shot that required much thought.)

 

But you are arguing from some "fairness" point of view while I am arguing from what the rule actually says.  I just do not see anything in the rule that allows any kind of accumulation of probabilities over more than the hole in question.  

post #33 of 35
Quote:
Originally Posted by turtleback View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by iacas View Post
 

 

I still disagree with the bold, because the end goal is to turn in a final score that's representative of what you'd have shot, in total. Since it's for handicapping, and handicapping is not done on a  per-hole basis (calculating your differential is done with an 18-hole score), the totality should be taken into consideration.

 

Let's imagine you're conceded 10 shots from 150 yards (obviously it's not going to happen, but it's a thought exercise). Maybe you're 60% likely to hit the green, and you average 1.9 putts per time you hit the green, but you're a lousy scrambler so you only get up and down 25% of the time when you miss the green.

 

Should you add three all ten times for 30 when realistically you'd average between 32 and 33. After all, the odds of hitting the green any of those times are > 50%.

 

(To argue against myself, handicaps are actually about potential, not regression to the mean. You'd probably have more luck convincing me via that avenue. :D In real life, honestly, this thing has NEVER come up. I've played plenty of match play events when I was keeping a handicap, and I don't remember ever being unsure about my most likely score for any given hole. Maybe most of my matches were close enough that I was rarely conceded a shot that required much thought.)

 

But you are arguing from some "fairness" point of view while I am arguing from what the rule actually says.  I just do not see anything in the rule that allows any kind of accumulation of probabilities over more than the hole in question.  

 

I'd have to go with this too.   Each 5 foot putt on each hole is a unique situation - there may be similarities, but none are identical.  The simple fact that each must be read correctly puts enough doubt on the result that statistics just won't work.  As such each one must be taken individually.  I don't  see any way to lump them together as a set and apply a statistical formula to it.

post #34 of 35
Quote:
Originally Posted by turtleback View Post
 

But you are arguing from some "fairness" point of view while I am arguing from what the rule actually says.  I just do not see anything in the rule that allows any kind of accumulation of probabilities over more than the hole in question.  

 

I disagree that's necessarily what the rule actually says. It doesn't say anything about disregarding prior actions (i.e. regression to the mean). It simply says that the player must make the best determination.

 

A: Most likely score is a judgment that each player must make based on the player's own game. It consists of the number of strokes already taken plus, in the player's best judgment, the number of strokes needed to complete the hole from that position more than half the time. The player must evaluate each situation based on what the player can reasonably expect to score.

I think you could take the bold to mean that the round should be considered.

 

I don't think a guy who makes 51% of his seven footers should give himself one stroke for 18 consecutive 7-footers, do you? Even if they're relatively simple. A PGA Tour pro wouldn't be able to claim that, and that's less "reasonable" than claiming he'd make 10 or 11 of them and miss the others, no?

 


 

FWIW, I've already flipped (not fully, but mostly) on this one, but I did so because of my argument about potential and not because of the language in the Rules. I'd evaluate every situation and if there was a 60 or 65% chance or better, I'd give myself the one stroke, but in the grey area of 50-60% or so, I'd give myself two and then if, somehow (probably almost never gonna happen) a third similar scenario presents itself, I'd add one to it… because a handicap is about potential, not a running average.

post #35 of 35

I wouldn't over think this.  The fact that a player is actually giving this some thought, instead of blindly putting down a conceded stroke,  warms the hearts of many a handicap chairman.

First, unless you are going to show a line to a partner, you can always "putt it for score".  I do this all the time.

Second, yes treat each putt differently, but that doesn't mean you can't consider a lot of things.

I'm putting well  today.

I'm putting like Helen Keller today.

This is a straight putt.

This is a big breaker.

I've already made 4 in a row this length, statistically I'm going to miss one.

Just give each situation an honest assessment.  That's all we can ask.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Rules of Golf
TheSandTrap.com › Golf Forum › The Clubhouse › Rules of Golf › Posting most likely score in match play competition